Affidavit Office Subpoena Office Fees formerly payable to the Lord Chancellor Fees received by the Lord Chancellor's Secretary, and paid into Court by order of the Lord Chancellor Fees received by Secretary of Lunatics Clerks to Masters in Lunacy £ s. d. 35,816 6 2 13,384 19 6 3,654 2 9 10,556 15 8 700 2 6 39 16 1,706 7 8 171 2 8 2,891 7 0 2,793 6 4 Record and Writ Clerks Master of Rolls' Secretary Fees received under Winding-up Act Cash received from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue Cash brought over from various Causes, Matters, and Accounts, in Cash brought over from Account of Moneys arising from Sale of Six Cash brought over from Account Board of Visitors of Lunatics Excess of Fees above Charges for the year ending 25th Nov., 1852. 13,869 18 11 785 6 10 32 4 0 1,259 16 6 6,630 17 1 ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYHOLDS. ment, from which the manor is most unac DUCHY OF CORNWALL. MANOR OF KEN NINGTON, SURREY. countably excluded. A COPYHOLder. SELECTIONS FROM CORRESPOND- By the various Acts for the Enfranchisement of Copyhold Estates, the Legislature has from time to time shown an anxious desire to AMENDMENT OF THE LAW OF LANDLORD reduce old copyhold estates to common socage, in consideration,-1st, of a gross sum of money; 2nd, a corn rent-charge; or 3rd, of conveyance of land, parcel of the manor. a AND TENANT. It is well-known that a landlord may within a limited period follow goods clandestinely retaken into an empty house, where they are moved,-rent being in arrear. The goods are seized by the landlord for his rent, for which the tenant commences an action against him, falsely alleging they are not the same goods as were removed. In order, therefore, to avoid any such difficulty on the part of the landlord in future, I would suggest that they should be held to be the identical goods, unless positive proof was given to the contrary. CIVIS. The Crown has, from time to time, by passing the Bills, admitted the principle. I am, however, utterly at a loss to imagine, why the Duchy of Cornwall, including the Manor of Kennington, the property of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, should be so tenaciouly excluded from the operation of the Acts. Surely, if enfranchisement was desirable in one manor it was equally so in another and an adjacent one. It cannot be from a wish to levy the fees or to maintain the old feudal system, which, after nearly eight centuries, may well be suffered to die a natural death. For what possible object then can SIR,-Your readers are no doubt aware, that the system be maintained? I have too pro- under the old practice there were two modes in found an opinion of the good sense and noble which a defendant could change the venueconduct of Prince Albert, not to think that he would gladly lend his aid to enfranchise these copyholds, and prevent the constantly recurring heartburnings between lord or steward and tenant, as to the fines demanded, and which exceed the fines paid by any other manor in the kingdom. MANOR OF KENNINGTON. CIVIS. Perceiving that the Attorney-General has given notice of motion for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and explain the Copyhold Acts, I trust the honourable gentleman will not fail to extend his amendments so as to include the Manor of Kennington, parcel of the Duchy of Cornwall, that the tenants of the manor may enjoy the benefit of the Acts for Enfranchise CHANGING THE VENUE. the one by obtaining a side-bar rule on production of the common affidavit-the other by making an application to the Court or a Judge for a special order on particular grounds stated-and I have no doubt but what they are also aware that the first-mentioned branch of the practice was followed whenever it would be the means of delaying a plaintiff and the affidavit could be made. Now, on referring to the New Rules, I found one of them (No. 18), which I thought was intended to prevent this abuse of the power to The rule states "that no change the venue. the Court or a Judge, unless by consent of the venue shall be changed without a special order of that this special order will be made on an apparties." However, I find (by experience), and therefore, the only alteration effected by plication, supported by the coinmon affidavit, the rule is in the mode of proceeding. J. B. C. 442 Notes of Week.-Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor.-Lords Justices. NOTES OF THE WEEK. LAW APPOINTMENTS. THE Queen has been pleased to appoint Robert Hodgson, Esq., to be Chief Justice for Prince Edward Island. REMUNERATION OF SOLICITORS. Our courteous correspondent "A Law Reformer" will find that, allowing for the labour and skill bestowed by the solicitor in preparing the instructions for a hill in Chancery, and in seeing that the instructions are corHer Majesty has also been pleased to ap-rectly followed, and for which he is legally repoint Robert Crosby Beete, Esq., to be First sponsible,-for all which services he is paid Puisne Judge of the colony of British Guiana. only a small fixed fee, he is not overpaid by the charge for drawing the bill, which the Her Majesty has also been pleased to appoint Charles Douglas Stewart, Esq., to be her equity draftsman prefers should be prepared Majesty's Attorney-General, and James Cle- by his pupils according to his own forms. with costs to re-open order for taxation and March 23.-In re Sandford-Petition refused payment of costs in lunacy. of signature of bankrupt's certificate in 1813, 23.-In re Hornby-Certificate refused A patent was ordered on petition to be sealed Rolt and Drewry appeared in support of this petition, to have the Great Seal affixed to the petitioners' patent of Oct. 2 last, for making millboards from straw. The Solicitor-General had reported in favour of the petitioners against the claim of Mr. Peter Warren, who had obtained a patent on Feb. 12 last. It was also sought to have the time extended, within which the specification must be lodged. Malins and Hindmarch, contrà, submitted the patent should be sealed as of the 12th Feb., or a reference back be directed for further inquiry. The Lord Chancellor said, that in order to induce the Court to refuse the sealing of a patent, very clear evidence was necessary that the invention claimed was not new. In the present case, there was no such clear proof as to justify such refusal, and as the petitioners had made out a prima facie case in favour of their alleged invention being a new one, their 23.-Trail v. Bull-Part heard. Lords Justices. Aveling v. Martin. March 18, 1853. DEFENDANT IN CONTEMPT FOR WANT OF ANSWER.-ORDER UNDER 11 GEO. 4 AND 1 WM. 4, c. 36, s. 12. Motion for order under the 11 Geo. 4 and 1 Wm. 4, c. 36, r. 12, against defendant in contempt for want of answer, directed to stand over for notice to be served on such defendant. THIS was an exparte application for an order under the 11 Geo. 4 and 1 Wm. 4, c. 36, r. 12, against one of the defendants, Mr. Matthew Martin, who upon being in contempt for want of answer, had been examined before Vice-Chancellor Kindersley, and handed over to the keeper of the Queen's Prison upon giving no satisfactory answer why he would not answer. H. F. Bristowe, in support, referred to Maitland v. Rodger, 14 Sim. 92; Sidney Smith's Handbook of Chancery Practice, p. 163. The Lords Justices said, that notice must be Superior Courts: Lords Justices.—Rolls.-V. C. Stuart. given to the defendant and the motion then made,1 Salvidge v. Tutton. March 19, 1853. PAYMENT OF 443 The Lords Justices said, that the Act applied, and remitted the case back with this intimation. March 23. MONEY OUT OF COURT.- Leake POWER OF ATTORNEY.-PROOF OF EXE-proof. CUTION OF. Order for payment of money out of Court under a power of attorney, upon affidavit of the handwriting of the petitioner thereto, although it purported to be duly executed and was certified by a notary public under his hand and seal, with a certificate of the mayor under his hand, and the seal attached of the city of Utica, New York, where the petitioner resided. THIS was a petition, seeking the payment out of Court of a sum of 1801., three per cent. consols, under a power of attorney, executed by the petitioner, who resided at Utica, New York, purported to be duly executed, and which was certified by a notary public at that place, under his hand and seal, with a certificate of the mayor, under his hand, and the city seal attached. J. H. Palmer in support, referred to the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, and 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99. The Lords Justices said, the order would be drawn up on an affidavit, proving the petitioner's signature to the power of attorney. Sewell v. Ashley. March 22, 1853. JURISDICTION OF EQUITY IMPROVEMENT ACT.-SUMMONS ON EXECUTORS OF WILL OF MARRIED WOMAN. Held, that the Judge has jurisdiction to issue a summons, under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 45, on the executors of the will of a married woman, under a power of appointment contained in her marriage settlement, although the administration sought was limited to the estate over which the power extended. W. M. James and Kinglake appeared in support of this application by the direction of the Master of the Rolls, on behalf of the next friend of an infant legatee, for a summons under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 45, on the executors of a testatrix, to attend at Chambers before the Master of the Rolls, to show cause why an order should not be granted for the administration of her personal estate. It appeared the will was made by a married woman, under a power of appointment contained in her marriage settlement. R. Palmer and Prendergast for the executors, contrà, on the ground the administration sought was limited to the estate over which she had the power of appointment. Notice was accordingly given to the defendant, and the order was made on March 23, upon an affidavit being filed of such service. - Exparte Warrington, in re Order on appeal for admission of 23.-In re Merchant Traders' Ship Loan and Assurance Company-Application to be made to Commissioner to expunge proof. 23.-In re Direct Birmingham, Oxford, Reading, and Brighton Railway Company,exparte Spottiswoode Reference back to the Master. 23. In re Dover, Brighton, and Hastings Railway Company, exparte Dayrell-Motion refused to expunge name from list of contributories. 23, 24.-Johnson v. Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Company-Appeal dismissed from Vice-Chancellor Wood. MARRIAGE OF SETTLEMENT OF MINOR. PROPERTY AS IF WARD OF COURT. A minor had been induced to contract a marriage with the defendant, on her uncle threatening to make her a ward of Court: Held, that the husband was not entitled to have a moiety only of her property settled, but a decree was made as if the suit had been instituted lefore her marriage for a settlement of the whole of her property to her for life to her separate use, without power of anticipation, then to her husband for life, if he survived her, and then to the children. THIS bill was filed on behalf of Mrs. Mary 444 Superior Courts: V. C. Stuart.-V. C. Wood.-Court of Bankruptcy. Layton, by her next friend, for a settlement of tion merely, after the laches that had taken certain property, to which she was entitled place, and the application was accordingly reunder the will of her father, upon her mother's fused-the costs to be costs in the cause. death in October, 1851. It appeared that soon after her death the plaintiff's uncle communicated his intention of making the plaintiff a ward of Court to the defendant's father, and that some of his family thereupon induced her to marry the defendant immediately, in order to avoid being involved in the threatened proceedings, and she was accordingly married on Nov. 5. Bagshawe and Rogers for the plaintiff; Bagshawe, jun., for her sister, who had taken out administration to her father. Bacon and Selwyn for the husband. The Vice-Chancellor said, that the marriage was contracted under circumstances of haste and improvidence, and under apprehension that the plaintiff was to be made a ward of Court, and the same protection must be extended to her property as if a suit had been instituted before her marriage, and the case could not be dealt with as if the husband had become entitled to the property after marriage, and one-half only be settled. There must, therefore, be a decree for a settlement on the plaintiff for life to her separate use, without power of anticipation, then to the defendant for life if he should survive her, and then to the children. March 23.-Colombine v. Penhall; Penhall v. Miller-Order for settlement to be set aside as void against the assignees. 23.-Penhall v. Elwin-Deed set aside as against creditors. Vice-Chancellor Wood. Farina v. Gebhardt. March 23, 1853. INJUNCTION.-USE OF LABELS AND TRADE MARKS.-LACHES.-COSTS. refused to restrain action at law. 23.-Brenan v. Preston-Order for ap pointment of solicitor as examiner, under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 31. Court of Bankruptcy. (Coram Mr. Commissioner Evans.) DER S. 125 OF BANKRUPT LAW CON- Held, that trade fixtures belonging to a bankrupt are liable to be sold under the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 125, as goods and chattels in his possession, order, or disposition, although they are, in fact, mortgaged. THIS was an application for an order under the 125th section of the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, for the sale of certain property as being in the bankrupt's possession, order, or disposition. It appeared that the goods in question were trade fixtures, and that they had been mortcontinued in the possession of the bankrupt. gaged to Messrs. Smith and Son, in 1850, but Cur. ad. vult. The Court said, the case of Fenn v. Bittleston, 7 Exch. R. 152, which had been cited, did not apply to the present case, as there the goods, at the time of the mortgage, did not belong to the bankrupt. The question depended on whether trade fixtures passed to the assignees as goods and chattels. According to the decisions in Poole's case, 1 Salk. 367, and Hellawell v. Eastwood, 6 Exch. R. 295, it appears that trade fixtures must, as between landlord and tenant, be considered as goods and chattels, and under the Commissioner's warrant the messenger always takes possession of the tenant's fixtures which are scheduled among the furniture. Nothing would be more mischievous than mortgages like the present, as nothing gives a trader greater credit than that he appears to have well-furnished preTHIS was a motion for an injunction to re-mises, and the order asked must therefore be strain the defendant from selling certain per- made. fumed waters in bottles, having labels or wrap An injunction was refused on interlocutory motion, to restrain the sale of certain perfumed waters, and the use of labels and wrappers in colourable imitation of the plaintiff's trade marks, where it appeared a period of nine months had elapsed since the alleged infringement had come to the plaintiff's knowledge-costs to be costs in the cause. pers which should be colourable imitations of 1 Which enacts that, "if any bankrupt at the plaintiff's labels or wrappers, and from the time he becomes bankrupt shall, by the using his trade marks thereon. It appeared consent and permission of the true owner that the infringement came to the plaintiff's knowledge in July last. Daniel and Hetherington in support, said the delay was occasioned by the investigations which had taken place. Rolt, Waley, and Colquhoun, contrà, were not called on. The Vice-Chancellor said, that the injunction could not be granted on the interlocutory mo thereof, have in his possession, order, or disposition, any goods or chattels, whereof he was reputed owner, or whereof he had taken upon him the sale, alteration, or disposition as owner, the Court shall have power to order the same to be sold and disposed of for the benefit of the creditors under the bankruptcy." |